It’s the end of an era at the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme CourtIt's the end of an era at the U.S. Supreme Court. Today Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement.

In a letter sent this afternoon to President Donald Trump, Kennedy announced that "effective July 31 of this year," he will "end his regular active status as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court." "Please permit me by this letter," Kennedy wrote, "to express my profound gratitude for having had the privilege to seek in each case how best to know, interpret, and defend the Constitution and the laws that must always conform to its mandates and promises."

Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, Kennedy's impact on American law and politics is almost beyond reckoning. From the battles over gay rights, abortion, and affirmative action, to the clashes over gun control, campaign finance, and health care reform, Kennedy's fingerprints are everywhere. He is perhaps the single most influential jurist alive today and he will surely go down in American legal history as one of the most influential justices to serve on the high court.

Perhaps his most notable contribution came in the area of gay rights. Kennedy is and will remain a hero to many for his authorship of all four of the Supreme Court's great decisions affirming the fundamental rights of gay people. In Romer v. Evans (1996), Kennedy led the Court in overturning a Colorado constitutional amendment that barred state officials from taking any action designed to protect gays from discrimination. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Kennedy led the Court in overturning that state's ban on "homosexual conduct." In United States v. Windsor (2013), Kennedy led the Court in invalidating a central part of the Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), he led the Court in recognizing a constitutional right to gay marriage.

On the hot button issue of abortion, Kennedy managed to alternately hearten and dispirit both sides of the debate. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Kennedy joined the plurality opinion which is widely credited with saving Roe v. Wade from being overturned. Casey reaffirmed that abortion is a fundamental right and held that state regulations many not "impose an undue burden on the right." Yet in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Kennedy wrote the majority opinion upholding the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act signed by President George W. Bush. More recently, Kennedy joined Justice Stephen Breyer's opinion in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), which held that Texas exceeded its lawful regulatory power when it imposed certain onerous health and safety restrictions on abortion clinics and providers.

As a moderate conservative with liberal tendencies, Kennedy often found himself casting the tie-breaking vote in such closely divided cases. That gave him tremendous influence over the direction of American law.

That influence came with a certain price. Over the years, Kennedy has been denounced by every major faction in American politics. In conservative circles, for example, he has been keelhauled as a reckless judicial activist who "invented" a right to gay marriage. Liberals, meanwhile, have burned him in effigy as the unwitting mouthpiece for corporate oligarchs thanks to his majority opinion in the Citizens United case. And among libertarians, Kennedy has been damned as the fair-weather federalist who torpedoed the rights of local medical marijuana users in favor of a federal drug control scheme. Libertarians will also point out that Kennedy joined the majority opinion that unleashed the forces of eminent domain abuse in Kelo v. City of New London (2005).

To say the least, Kennedy's jurisprudence defies easy categorization. Legal scholars will be arguing about it for a long time to come.

Kennedy's retirement comes at a loaded moment in American politics. As things stand now, Senate Republicans have the votes—but just barely—to approve whatever nominee President Trump puts forward as a replacement. But what if the Republican ranks don't hold?

And then of course there are the Democrats, who will undoubtedly mount a massive political attack on whatever nominee Trump puts forward.

In short, thanks to Kennedy's retirement, all hell is about to break loose.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

LC, HBO has no ratings system. As they are a paid subscription channel with no advertisers. So if one already has HBO, it makes no difference if one tunes into his show or not. Plus it's pretty likely that the major highlights of his whining will be excerpted and posted on YouTube.

which was stupid for the Dems to fight him. he didn't change the balance of the court. But "MUH STOLEN SEAT" The GOP might have been less likely to end the filibuster to change the ideological balance. Now that it is done no biggie. the only issue I see are Twerps like McCain and Flake getting their panties in a twist and causing problems.

All the Congressional, media, and public debates recognized that the 14th amendment would apply the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights included, to the states. The the Supreme Court crapped on it with Slaughterhouse.

If you apply "original intent", you obviously don't consider the 14th Amendment as it wouldn't be ratified for nearly a century.

If you do apply the 14th Amendment, then do you apply "1868 intent" (which obviously isn't "originalism"), or invent a "what original intent would have been if the 14th Amendment had been part of it all along" (which again, obviously isn't "originalism")?

Of course you apply original as when it was created. That's what "original" means. What next, you will complain about the Magna Carta or that "press" or "speech" should inly include 1787 press and speech?

If you apply "original intent", you obviously don't consider the 14th Amendment

That is nonsense. originalism includes the constitution being validly and fundamentally changed on 2/3 vote of the states.
The canard that "originalism is a sham" is absurd. The founders did not see themselves as prescient gods. Nor did the US citizenry at the time.

Sure, if by "all," you mean "some." John Bingham and Jacob Howard may have believed that the 14th amendment would incorporate the bill of rights, but they didn't speak for everybody who voted for the amendment. Charles Fairman did a pretty thorough dive into the legislative history of the 14th amendment and concluded that Justice Black's theory of incorporation was blowing smoke. (C. Fairman, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 Stat. L. Rev. 5 (1949).)

All the debaters talked of "all" privileges and immunities, not just the few related to waterways or whatever. You are not the first to claim otherwise, but reading the debates would disabuse of that falsehood, if you dared.

The doctrine of incorporation is a legal scam. The BOR were not modified by the 14th. Congress shall make no law means, pretty much, what it says. Nothing in the 14th says otherwise. At least not in the real world, where words have meaning.

Originalist, if honestly applied, would mean the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government.

Why? Please explain.

Why was the wording of the 1st amendment specifically applied to the federal government and not the states while the other amendments are more general and universal? The supremacy clause specifically states that all judges in the states should follow the supreme law of the land, ie the constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to be the supreme law of the land.

originalist look at the Bill of Rights and the Amendents as added by 2/3rd of the states and previous decisions.

Judges such as the 9th Circuit, Sotamayor RBG and a former President who claims to be a Constitutional lawyer...look at the Constitution as a breathing entity that should be interpreted according to the times....

all based on their feelings....no right or wrong concerning the law...just how you felt when you violated it....

Actually sound suppressors are legal. They just require the same permit as full auto.
You know, rights only for the obscenely rich, not ALL Americans.
(For all you liberals out there, NFA is the National Firearms Act)
There are generally three ways to own a NFA weapon: as an individual, through a gun trust, or as a Limited Liability Company. (This is how lawyers get rich; trusts and LLCs to exercise constitutional rights)
All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. (You pay for the background check and the fingerprinting, and of course the tax)

A permanent transfer, even if tax-free, must be approved by ATF. The proper form should be submitted to ATF before the transfer occurs. For example, lawful heirs must submit a Form 5 and wait for approval before taking possession of any NFA item willed to them. (The tax is $200.00).
Upon the request of any ATF agent or investigator, or the Attorney General, the registered owner must provide proof of registration of the firearm. (Note there is no requirement that the "request" have any reason at all, just any old "request" will do)
Now picture the left wing outcry if anyone tried to apply that kind of restriction to the First Amendment.

Mutilated murdered bodies of children occur about 6:1 in Democrat counties and cities. They are much more likely to occur by beating, strangulation, guns, bludgeon or knife in in Maryland they are in same region very close education, income, age average demographic Virginia.

Virginia has about 25% more gun owning households, close to 40 times the number of non law enforcement gun carriers, and is awash in AR-15 yet it has way less murdr of children than Maryland

The risk to children is being domiciled in a home with a prior criminal or a woman dating a prior criminal -- something that occurs at double the rate in Democrat jurisdictions, because they sentence violent criminals more leniently

I don't see why the Republican votes would not hold. The Democrats can filibuster but to what end? They are not going to be able to hold out for two years. And the Republicans will eventually go nuclear on them. The longer they filibuster the easier it will be for the Republicans to go nuclear.

They got a judge and the defendants to agree that fossil fuels cause climate change which is a huge concession from the head in the sand crowd. The evidentiary template will probably be used in future cases.

The oil companies agreed "for the sake of argument". If you can show that the plaintiffs have no case, even if all their statements of fact were true, then you can get a summary judgment. Or something like that. IANAL.

Sure. Both rest on the same "right to privacy" that y'all are so skeptical of. Knock that out and both (along with Loving v. Viriginia and Griswold v. Connecticut) would quickly be challenged.

Oh, he might go the Thomas route and say something like "it is stupid for the state to do so, but it is their right to be stupid", but I fully believe he'd take out the "right to privacy" and damn the consequences.

The Democrats dont have the balls to delay this new appointment. If Democrats are smart, they will seek good will on a moderate for when RBG dies while Trump is prez. If not, Trump will really goose them by nominating a Constitutionalist to replace her.

Gorsuch was the 'stolen seat' from what's his name that they wanted Obama to get appointed to the SCOTUS and he had 2 Democrats vote for his confirmation.

They don't even bother trying to reconcile their contradictory statements anymore. Whatever is convenient in this very moment is truth. Remember "The 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back"?

There's an excellent chance the Republican votes won't hold, because they're depending on several Republican Senators who are retiring/dying, and thus have no need to care what other Republicans think.

McCain in particular would gladly vote "No", just to stick it to the people he so hated having to pretend being one of.

California expats are poisoning every state within arms' reach.
"Hurr durr, I can't afford to live here. I'll move somewhere more reasonable, then vote to elect the same brand of looters to make it more like Cali!"

It's really an incredible method of spreading a destructive ideology. Reminds me of explosive fungal spores, or a virus compromising a cell.

As a native Californian I do have to point out that there ARE two types of people bailing out of California...

Those leaving to get away from all the stupid

And those leaving to recreate all the stupid.

My family was the first kind, unfortunately too many of the 2nd kind followed us to Washington and ruined it... So on to Idaho I guess! If Idaho falls to the proggies the whole country is done, so that's about as good as it gets.

I had friends in Coeur d'Alene back during the wildfires and riots and mudslides around the time of Rodney King, and they told me how a bunch of Californians moved there in the early spring, and by the time the second winter was done, they were all gone.

Of course, maybe them moving to a cold climate might get them on board with promoting global warming...

I'm sure. The snow thing is a bit of a turn off to me too, but that area is not nearly as bad as saaay Michigan. It's the local weather patterns that actually keep it somewhat mild for how far north it is.

Either way I'll take some snow compared to putting up with the communists in Seattle nowadays. Spokane/CDA area is probably the most likely place for me right this second, but Boise is 2nd. I'm going to take a trip to Boise and see how it seems IRL, which I just did for Spokane and CDA and was fairly okay with.

1) There will be no Democrat majority in election 2018.
2) No supermajority is needed to confirm appointments, so unless a single Senator is going to talk for 7 months straight its not going to work. 5 months to election 2018 plus 2 months until Senators are sat in Congress.

LOL - I think you're discounting how many Republicans would defect if their finger in the air tells them the political winds are changing direction. As long as Trump keeps winning, they'll be glad to cheer for him. Somebody else starts winning and they'll cheer for that guy, too.

Hey idiot... Those are presidential election, not midyears. By your idiotic translation we can only appoint justices in odd years. Why are liberals so fucking dumb? Obama appointed a justice in 2010 prior to the election moron.

I will be happy when Democrats enlarge the court to a point at which the wingnut wing of the Court becomes irrelevant.

I would probably agree to limit the number of new positions to that needed to give the Democrats a single-vote advantage if Gorsuch and Alito would resign (with the understanding they'd be replaced by Republicans)..

Rev, you keep saying that like it's trolling us. It isn't. No one here believes it is a realistic outcme. You also make yourself look more ridiculous than you already did by saying, and saying it over and over.

You're just a punchline to a bad joke. I'll bet you also take the garbage spewed on Bill Maher's show seriously too.

And you are no less moronic. Why even wait in a presidential year? Didnt voters give Obama the mandate for four more years? Not just 3 years. Why do the voters in 2012 have less influence of a 2015 appointment compared to voters in 2016

The Republicans have already invoked the nuclear option during Gorsuch's confirmation. Supreme Court Justices now require only a majority vote to be confirmed. Of course, Senators McCain and Flake might vote with the Democrats just to piss off Trump, but then that makes the Supreme Court an issue in the November midterms and the Senate map this year doesn't look good for Democrats.

I can't imagine Joe Manchin, for example, telling his constituents "Vote for me so I can stop Trump!"

2) Even in the unlikely event that the on-his-deathbed Arizona putz decided to show up to work for the first time in several months and convince flakey Jeff Flake to vote "No" along with him an a pathetic dying attempt to stick it to Trump, it probably wouldn't matter because the vulnerable Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly will almost certainly vote for Trump's nominee once again.

The Secretary of Agriculture probably doesn't want to, either, but if someone came to him asking for a *ukase* declaring sodomy a constitutional right, the Secretary would probably say it's not within his powers.

Why is such a *ukase* any more within the power of federal judges than the Secretary of Agriculture?

Indeed. He's been around enough show business folks that I doubt Trump is homophobic. Even if He were, I know plenty of old guys who dislike homosexuality that say "the hell with it, if some faggots want to fuck each other in private, why should I give a shit?"

Regardless of whether he is personally cool with it, the Breitbart commentariat is not. I'd say 90% chance he intentionally nominated someone based purely on likelihood that that person is likely to "piss off liberals." That is the main thing now, the go-to play.

Step 1: do something purely to help his super elite bros and make sure it is designed to also "piss off the liberals"
Step 2: claim that if you don't like it you're a "Soto's globalist cuck"
Step 3: play the victim and demand that there be a return to "civility"
Step 4: personally attack someone on Twitter
Step 5: repeat crocodile tears and call for "civility"
Step 6: golf

Problem is he doesn't have to do anything to pissoff liberals. See travel ban. Used a standard power of the president per law and outrage. Liberals even bad mouthed him signing the right to try bill. Liberals are fucking insane.

Interesting point, I think he stays with the herd if team red has the votes, if they don't it could be interesting. Now that Fellows croaked the L party has lost steam and won't get 5 plus% like Tester's last go round, which I think gave him the W. Plus Rosendale sure seems like a d bag. After Mr Ts performance with Anderson Cooper trashing Jackson on CNN I hope the asshole goes down, too bad it would be Rosendale if he does. I think Gianforte beats "Moar free shit" Williams pretty easily, though, free shit doesn't play well here.

You know Pew Research shows that leftist like yourself are much more likely to be profoundly ignorant of civics and current events, and you show this continually.

McCain is not going to travel to DC to vote, and he would have to. It is virtually a slam dunk that three to five Democrats will vote for any Trump choice.

If you read up on heavily Dem sites, including sites with DNC insiders, this is all bad, a lose-lose. They will lose on blocking any nomination , the actually will lose votes on making a big deal of this. Even Twitter lighting up is bad for the DNC since they are losing control of snapping the debate.

It is literally the worst possible timing for Democrats. O fall possible 48 months for Kennedy announcing to retire, June-July 2018 ranks as the worst timing for Democrats to respond to either stop a Trump nomination or even us it to advantage in midterms.

Kennedy stuck the left and DNC in the eye and twisted it: he is not just retiring, he has picked the moment with the worst possible outcomes for the Democrats.

Is it acceptable for court decisions to be written as a series of rhetorical questions? If so, what form do we think this would take? Or would the Judge use the traditional format? And could his use of such questions become a sore point at any confirmation hearings? Should we be concerned?

No you don't. The golden rule of Supreme Court justices is that at best they stay as conservative or right leaning as they claim to be. They either stay the same or move left once on the court. They never move right. So, there is no guarantee that whoever replaces Kennedy will be better and there is at least a 50 50 chance they will be worse.

NR: Anthony Kennedy Can't Be Allowed to Die
So I've started to worry that if the Court soon consolidates to the left or the right, partisans on the losing end of that bargain will swiftly lose faith in democracy itself. A non-swinging Supreme Court would give the impression of super-charging the ability of one party to act, and restraining its competitor. A consolidated Supreme Court could open up whole new fields of legislation for one side to act against the other. At that point, what would happen?

So I've started to worry that if the Court soon consolidates to the left or the right, partisans on the losing end of that bargain will swiftly lose faith in democracy itself

What the fuck kind of planet has this guy been living on the last 30 years? The political leanings of Supreme Court justice nominees were never much an issue until the Bork hearings, but Kennedy's acting out during that period ensured that the whole process would be a thoroughly disingenuous and partisan going forward.

It's always been wildly partisan. Joe Biden attacked Robert Bork for not believing in natural law (presumably Biden's Catholic sensibilities were offended) and then attacked Clarence Thomas for believing in natural law. Biden is one of the worst partisan hacks to ever breathe the Senate air and that is no mean accomplishment.

I live in SF. Amazingly, the torch-light riots decrying Trump's ability to appoint a second SCJ have not yet begun.
It might well be that the shock is so great that the riots will have to await the recovery of much of the population.

They're got so much to work through today. Their outrage meter was stuck on 11 over Melania not caring about separating babies from their mothers already. Then the SC upheld the "Muslim ban". Then the SC pulled the rug out from under the public employee unions.

There was already nowhere to go on the outrage meter over 11. Where are they gonna go now that Trump gets to pick the next SC justice?

I'm guessing they go straight to DefCon 6, which is, of course, full out Emergency Drum Circle!

OMG This is amazing. I didn't vote for Trump but I'm now beginning to wish I had. Could you imagine the court with 2 leftists replacing Kennedy and Scalia? Kiss your 1st, 2nd, and a ton other amendments goodbye.

There's a ton about Trump to hate (Tariffs, etc), but Libertarians are getting more out of Trump then they ever would have out of Clinton. Prove me wrong.

Most libertarian in a generation? Most libertarian since Reagan, who was the most libertarian since Coolidge, who in turn was the most libertarian since WH Harrison, the original libertarian president.

I never really understood the PePe the Frog meme, but the smug frog seems to communicate the kind of schadenfreude I feel seeing progressive flail about after they've been handed their asses to wear as a hat.

"But what if the Republican ranks don't hold?"
What, you mean after midterms? You think they'll wait that long to confirm Kennedy's replacement? On what planet would they wait, when the list is already built, they hold a majority and there's a risk (albeit slight) that the midterms could corrupt this?

They could do it from November to Jan 3rd.
Of course if they lost the majority and subsequently did confirm someone in that time period, the left would go absolutely bonkers in a way that makes the present level of bonkers look like a minor temper tantrum.

Again, why wait until midterms. They have a pre-vetted list they just need to dust off, assuming they didn't already know about Kennedy's intentions months ago, and a Senate that's anxious to walk their nominee through. There's no factor that makes waiting a likely or sensible play right now.

That can be interpreted 2 ways... But the way that makes the most sense is he would only retire if an R was in to offer up his replacement. That's pretty sweet of him, especially since he is a "moderate" conservative.

Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia
Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida
Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
Britt Grant of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia
Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Mike Lee of Utah, senator
Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah
Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa
Federico Moreno of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Kevin Newsom of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
David Stras of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (retired)
Don Willett of Texas, Supreme Court of Texas
Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Kennedy's retirement comes at a loaded moment in American politics. As things stand now, Senate Republicans have the votes—but just barely—to approve whatever nominee President Trump puts forward as a replacement. But what if the Republican ranks don't hold?

And then of course there are the Democrats, who will undoubtedly mount a massive political attack on whatever nominee Trump puts forward.

"With Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announcing his retirement Wednesday, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., quickly joined some fellow Democrats in calling for the vote for his replacement to be delayed until after the midterm elections in November."https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/
Kamala-Harris-kennedy-replacement
-midterms-durbin-13031372.php

Why does she want to wait until the republicans pick off a few seats? Is she delusional enough to believe, in an election cycle where the economy is ok and improving, where the dems have nothing to run on other than hysterical bleating, and where dems are defending into 25 seats, that they are going to flip the senate?

Deeply shallow reflection on a career spanning decades. Gay rights and abortion, hi ho! Go no further than those two issues, and stick with the binary stupidity of "sides." The strength of the Court is in its freedom from "sides." The Court's task is to say what the law is, not whose "side" is right.

As with all else in the current moment, those who are desperate to retain their positions will do all things possible to ensure that no confirmation occurs in the near term. That way the United States can suffer again with a less than full complement of justices, which is, of course, of secondary importance to reelection.

Deeply shallow reflection on a career spanning decades. Gay rights and abortion, hi ho! Go no further than those two issues, and stick with the binary stupidity of "sides." The strength of the Court is in its freedom from "sides." The Court's task is to say what the law is, not whose "side" is right.

As with all else in the current moment, those who are desperate to retain their positions will do all things possible to ensure that no confirmation occurs in the near term. That way the United States can suffer again with a less than full complement of justices, which is, of course, of secondary importance to reelection.

New Supreme nomination. May go out on a limb here and suggest McCain will vote against anyone Trump nominates. It's getting harder to garner headlines and he's running out of time for more "maverick" grandstanding.

I agree, I don't know if it is a lock that Trump gets to appoint the judge he prefers. Because of what happened with Gorsuch all gloves are off and Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans can basically do anything that is possible with no respect for precedent.

Trump's gotten one and we're still one short on the SC? This will give him two and an excuse for a third? That's a hell of a lot of turnover in a decade. RBG leaves? She's going to have to hold on and hope Trump doesn't get a second term or he's going to be able to pack the court like nobody' business.

I don't know. Maybe its good if he can, maybe its horrible. Obama had one good pick and one that's . . . not horrible 100% of the time. Trump's thrown in Gorsuch, if he can at least hit 50/50 then it might be ok.

It's been whispered that Clarence Thomas longs for retirement. Time is ripe if he would like to see someone like himself but 25 years younger. I'd pay cash money to watch the confirmation hearings for a black, woman hard liner.

As much as I like Thomas, because I agree with his hardcoreness on a lot of important issues, it would strategically be a good thing if he retired. I suppose I hope he does, provided Trump doesn't bow to pressure to even allow a "moderate" into the court.

Yeah, that's the bummer. He's pretty much the best guy in there! Striking down BS past decisions is EXACTLY what needs to happen if we ever want to fix this country, ESPECIALLY some of the horrible FDR era ones that enabled the insane federal government we have now.

But he's also old... He should have a chance to enjoy his last few years on earth, and also give the country a shot at getting a solid replacement.

"I don't know. Maybe its good if he can, maybe its horrible. Obama had one good pick and one that's . . . not horrible 100% of the time. Trump's thrown in Gorsuch, if he can at least hit 50/50 then it might be ok."

I'm also not thrilled at some of the long-list names, but, but, but...
I am sighing with relief that the hag has not been handed such opportunities to screw the republic.

Wingnuts won't know what packing the court is until a Democratic Congress and Democratic president enlarge the Court to the degree necessary to overcome the wingnut wing of that Court. I'm guessing four new positions should be about right, for starters.

Arthur -- still waiting for your numbers to back up you claim that more guns in the US caused US gun homicide rates to "skyrocketed" the past generation. They went down, and the numbers on that have nothing to do with the CDC being prohibited from giving money to gun control adovacy researches.

And all the court packing schemes (enlarging the courts) will likely benefit the GOP long term

Ref, it's funny you think they will get away with that. It's also funny you think your fellow travelers will be in such a position anytime soon. At their current rate of collapse, they will be incarcerated en masses fairly soon as they aggressively cross the line to outright sedition. Auntie Maxine came close this last week.

The sad part is, the courts and executive orders are where most of the action is nowadays. Congress remains AWOL. So who is going to replace the swing vote on SCOTUS gets more attention to who is going to be the swing vote in the Senate or the House after the next election. It's completely backwards.

A religious attack on Obergefell probably still won't work -- but a medically based attack well might. The opinion (and its precedents) rests on sand (recall Bowers v. Hardwick at one time was good law), and on my personal knowledge, the Court was denied access to an amicus brief raising just that issue because a demodonkey clerk seized it and locked it in a drawer until after submissions were closed.

The fundamental problem is this: Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman in which the rights and obligations of the parties are asymmetric and sex-specific. At some point, a county clerk is going to refuse a marriage license, then, after she is hauled before a fuming district court judge, say the magic words: "It was not legally possible for me to comply with the court's previous order because compliance required issuance of a legal nullity."

And, that opens the question to why it is a nullity, and whether States, to protect public health, may keep the definition of "marriage" restricted to exclude same-sex couples.

I know I'll get a lot of fiery whining on this, but I am reporting the truth.

Readers have every right to their own opinion but not to their own facts.

And, the constitution of the State of Florida still says what it says.

In a same-sex marriage, who gets dower, who gets curtesy? In a same-sex marriage, who has the obligation of domicile, who the obligation of support? And, should both partners engage in a minor crime such as, e.g., filing a dangerous tax return, in a same-sex marriage, which one enjoys the defense of coercion? The first to think of it? The first to get into court? The one the judge deems "prettiest"? Or maybe the one with the wherewithal to jump up and down before the justice of the peace and shout, "I get to be the mommy!"

And I could go on.

More problems the Court probably didn't think about: Joe has a sex-change operation (he's a man impersonating a woman with a surgical assist). Ken is deceived by Joe's representations that Joe really is female and marries him, but eventually he learns of the deception and demands an annulment. Can he get one as a matter of law? Prior to Obergefell, the clear answer was "yes" (a same-sex "marriage" is a nullity, regardless of whether you fool your partner or the clerk of the court). But now?

These are real problems in family law that have come up before and will come up again. And, the bottom line is that the Obergefell court simply papered them over, upon Justice Kennedy's personal "feeling" that Hardwick was wrongly decided.

Well, maybe it was wrongly decided; but, my guess is whoever Trump nominates to fill Kennedy's place will "feel" otherwise.

Robert Crim|6.27.18 @ 11:19PM|#
"In a same-sex marriage, who gets dower, who gets curtesy? In a same-sex marriage, who has the obligation of domicile, who the obligation of support? And, should both partners engage in a minor crime such as, e.g., filing a dangerous tax return, in a same-sex marriage, which one enjoys the defense of coercion? The first to think of it? The first to get into court? The one the judge deems "prettiest"? Or maybe the one with the wherewithal to jump up and down before the justice of the peace and shout, "I get to be the mommy!"
And I could go on."

Oh, look! Poor bobby is worried that no one cares about his penis anymore!
What a shame, you fucking imbecile.

That's because women are fucking lame dude. Every man knows this. Hanging out with women is a total drag compared to partying with male friends. Women are nice for sex, and cuddling, washing dishes, and some other stuff, but even my best female friends/partners were nowhere near as awesome to just hang out with as my guy friends.

"The fundamental problem is this: Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman in which the rights and obligations of the parties are asymmetric and sex-specific."
That was true when it was Ug and Oga who 'married'; not so much anymore

"I know I'll get a lot of fiery whining on this, but I am reporting the truth."
No, you're posting some left-over Xian bullshit and claiming 'truth'.

"Readers have every right to their own opinion but not to their own facts."
Yeah, you should find some.

Robert Crim|6.27.18 @ 11:23PM|#
"This is not a response, just someone venting his spleen (which I expected)."
You're a fucking religious ignoramus, and you were called on your religious bullshit, ignoramus. You should learn to read.

"But, see my additional comments, supra."
I see your idiocy above; you are good at posting stupidity. Are you proud, ignoramus?

Try explaining that there's no difference between the man and the women in a court in 2018 buddy! The divorce and child custody system is still SUPER slanted against men, and in favor of women. But men have lost all the legal perks we used to enjoy with respect to marriage that perhaps made it an overall reasonable arrangement, especially when divorce was a very rare thing.

There's a reason MGTOW and MRAs etc exist, and it's because of bias in the legal system as it exists to this day.

My concern is (a) that Crypt-Keeper McCain who won't resign until his wife gets appointed but is too sick to vote and (b) Collins, Murkowski.

Perhaps this forces McCain to resign and be replaced by a non-psycopath. And then all these red state dems have to choose between voting for Trump's nominee or losing their election on the grounds they didn't.

Hopefully, there is another Gorsuch type out there or maybe even more libertarianish.

What we are going to see is not a "true" overturning of Roe, but a chipping away at it so that for states that really want to do it, is essentially overturned. Once that happens (and the rise of Trump has already gotten the ball rolling), women are going to get hyper-motivated to get the SCOTUS to reimplement Roe as a strong judgment. And the game from here on out will be no confirmation of strongly ideological SCOTUS justices unless there is unitary control, and the SCOTUS will be enlarged to give the new unitary regime the balance of the Court.

I could also see an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the right to abortion. Anecdotally, In my circle of female acquaintances who up until now were mild Republicans, it's war.

Roe's going nowhere. Been here @ 50 years. It's the sword of Damocles that the lunatic fringe wields every stinkin'time the enemy shows up at SCOTUS, quietly knocking for entry. They know Roe aint going to be gutted, but that's their tidy little secret. The whole charade, their fake scream, is the current version of Hannibal ad portas!

I agree with this but if Trump replaces Ginsberg or Breyer (or both), I could see Roe being overturned and the power going back to the states. I am pro-choice and think Roe is one of the worst decisions of the past 50 years.

The most notable thing Justices Kennedy and Roberts have accomplished is ruining the lives of 900,000 registered citizens and their families (3 million) by quoting a statement by a therapist in Psychology Today in 1986 concerning an erroneous 80% recidivism rate which went on to be included in over 100 cases across the nation. The collateral damage is ongoing and we will see if SCOTUS grants cert in the Colorado case ruling by Judge Matsch and if the Solicitor General suggests it apply to all registered citizens not just the three individuals. Google: Frightening and High by Ira and Tara Ellman. Women Against Registry

And Trump on Labor Day will announce that the trade talks were successful, and that we're not going to have a trade war with China after all. The market will explode, and so will the demodonkeys' chances.

And Santa Claus will deliver it all in his big red sleigh, right? Trump is going to announce that the trade talks were successful whether they were or not. Only fools like you will believe him without proof. I think it's past your bedtime, Robert.

Fools will believe Trump if the economy keeps humming along as it is and then picks up when he makes some sort of silly announcement. Trump is a showman, and a good one. I used to think he was a dumb bumbling moron. Then I thought maybe he is some sort of sneaky genius. Now I just think he is a showman like PT Barnum and has a knack for keeping the crowd interested and drawing in bigger and bigger audiences.

By the way, I didn't hear the "red wave" delusion from you first, or even second or third. You guys have been spouting about that for a year and a half already, despite history not being on your side in the slightest. If we're going to use history as an indicator, these things will happen:

- Republicans, being placated by their wins, will show up in smaller numbers. The true believers will show up, of course, but you can forget about a lot of the low income guys who have to work that day.

- Democrats, being energized, encouraged by 50+ election wins in the last year, and pissed about what the GOP is doing, will show up in droves.

- The GOP will lose at least one house of Congress, definitely the House, and will lose probably 2-3 Senate seats.

- Trump, like most businessman presidents, will leave the country in a recession or depression, despite having a strong economy when he started.

There has been quite a run of awesomeness lately. The pain on the left gives me great joy. In this instance I hope Trump appoints a hardcore mutha, and not a swing votey kind of tool. Obviously a libertarian bent would be nice, but even just a solid constitutionalist conservative would be fine by me.

Now if Thomas would retire (I'll miss him, but it makes sense strategically), and then 1-2 lefty judges would die... We might have a solid SC for a couple decades no matter who wins coming elections. That really could hold back the statists quite a bit, as it would force them to not get half the crap they want through, or to simply completely ignore how our system works and defy the court, thus setting them up to try to pull and coup, which would allow them to be deposed. Either way a win.

If you read up on heavily Dem sites, including sites with DNC insiders, this is all bad, a lose-lose. They will lose on blocking any nomination , they actually will lose votes in purple close states if they make big deal of this. Even Twitter lighting up is bad for the DNC since they are losing control of shaping the debate.

It is literally the worst possible timing for Democrats. Of all possible 48 months for Kennedy announcing to retire, June-July 2018 ranks as the worst timing for Democrats to respond to either stop a Trump nomination or even use it to advantage in midterms.

Kennedy stuck the left and DNC in the eye and twisted it: he is not just retiring, he has picked the moment with the worst possible outcomes for the Democrats.

If Hell is sin sickness and death. . . It s here to stay. Unlike Supreme Court justices! I heard a that MIT fed a computer the Constitution and all old Supreme Court cases for an AI SCOTUS thing. . . The computer set itself on fire.